Sri Prakash Gupta v. Dharmanand Pandey Decd Thr Lrs

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

¶1The impugned order had dismissed the application for leave to defend which had been filed by the tenant; the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) was of the view that no triable issue had arisen. Impugned order suffers from an infirmity as has rightly been pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application

for leave to defend filed by the tenant has been perused; his contention was that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises; the premises are not required bonafidely by the petitioner for his residence; it was stated that there were five shops owned by the landlord which form part of the building; out of these shops one shop is of a bigger size; in 2007, the petitioner himself had demolished the back portion of the tenanted premises in order to create a paucity of accommodation and he has demolished the roof of his one shop; in the site plan filed by the petitioner this portion has now been depicted as a gallery between the two shops; the petitioner is already in possession of three shops; he has also not filed the correct site plan; he has not disclosed the area which is in his possession. These averments had been denied by the reply filed by the landlord. However, this was merely a bald denial and the body of the eviction petition as also the reply show that the area which was under the possession of the landlord has still not been disclosed; he has merely denied that the area is not of 200 sq. yards as has been alleged in the application for leave to defend; furthermore, there is again a bald denial to the averment of the tenant that the petitioner had in fact himself demolished the roof of one of his shops to create a paucity of accommodation which now been shown as a gallery. The

eviction petition also shows that the area which was in possession of the landlord has not been depicted; in support of the landlord he has stated he was earlier the landlord and owner of 150 Sq. yards of the property i.e. property bearing No. B-IC-164, Chander Lok, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi-93 out of which certain portion was gifted to Smt. Bhagwait Joshi and Sh. Sonu Joshi and the remaining part continues to be with him; the said remaining part (as noted supra) has not been specified.

¶2It is also relevant to point out that the landlord himself has in his eviction petition stated that the building is very old and it is in a dilapidated state; this is even otherwise not a requirement for a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA; the contention of the tenant is that the petitioner himself had demolished this building in 2007 to create a paucity of accommodation in dilapidated state; the submission of the tenant that the landlord himself had demolished a part of the building to create a paucity of accommodation and the earlier two shops have been depicted as a gallery were matters which require evidence; triable issue had prima facie arisen; the ARC dismissing the application for leave to defend summarily in this factual context suffers from an infirmity. The impugned order is set aside. Triable issues having

arisen the ARC shall proceed to deal with the eviction petition on its merits.

¶3The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.11.2011.

¶4Petition is disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 04, 2011 rb

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 04.11.2011 + RC.REV. 88/2011 and CM No.6181/2011 SRI PRAKASH GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus DHARMANAND PANDEY DECD THR LRS ..... Respondent Through: Mr. L.N. Jha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?